'Time' as I am using it is a blunt force, unreasonable, and indifferent to stones, murder, love, hate, war...

I do not know, i do not live with it.

I don't know god, I don't live with god.

I live in a world that has no reason of its own, only what I give it.

But is that really your own reason what you going to give, or is it belong to someone else who pointed you into this direction?

My conclusion thus far, of course I think and read about such things.

So it is as possible that Socrates corrupted you trhogh Platon´s writings, as much as he did not.

Plato is one of my heroes, but I don't believe or agree with everything he wrote.

You can not agree with eveything he wrote, or just with everything! he wrote?

I don't believe in his forms, and I think he ended up having his doubts about the perfect realm.

I have to split (not in two).
nice chat, Ciao.

I only know that I can not belive neither in anything or nothing because a voice told this to me.
But I can Imagine the voice to telling peoples different things just as we read it From Plato´s Dialogues.

Arrivederci!

Arrivederci!

Mad Fool,

The "stone (omnipotence) paradox" is merely a problem in semantics. That is, questions such as "Could God square a circle ?" or "Could God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it ?" Are formulated in human language, and human language is simply not capable of describing any attribute or characteristic of God as He is in Himself. When I say God " as He is in Himself" I mean God the divine Subject or God as what Christians refer to as "essential" or "ontological trinity".

The Biblical God - as He is in himself- is, with respect to humanity, transcendent and "wholly other". He the divine Subject, is utterly unknowable, incomprehensible, unspeakable and forever hidden from man's view. He , as the divine Subject, is totally mysterious. As it is written of God in the Old Testament( Book of Isaiah) : " His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts".

Given this, human language is not capable of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being like the Christian God possesses. Even attempting to formulate questions like the "stone (omnipotence) paradox" is an exercise in futility since human words cannot begin to refer to God as He is in Himself.

Mad Fool,

With regard to God's transcendance, Karl Barth - who was arguably the 20th century's most influential Christian (Protestant) theologian - explains the issue far more eloquently than ever I could. So I will quote him directly to help clarify the point I am making about the "stone paradox" being merely a semantic problem... a problem rooted in the fact that human language totally lacks any capacity to even begin to attempt a description of ANY aspect of the true nature of God as He is in Himself - the "wholly other"and utterly mysterious divine Subject.

Barth says of Him...

"For humankind God is always on the other side, new, removed, foreign/Unknown, superior, is never within reach, never his possession, whoever utters God always says miracle"..."There is, to be precise, no divine predicate/affirmation ( such as "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent, etc), no divine concept that contains in particular that which God is, there is, to be precise, only the divine Subject and in Him the fullness of His divine affirmation"..."Insofar as a confirmation by the human is concerned, insofar as a spiritual happening is determined and receives its direction from God and takes on the form of faith, the impossible, the miracle, the PARADOX"
, takes place."

Regards

John

And your point is?

the fact that human language totally lacks any capacity to even begin to attempt a description of ANY aspect of the true nature of God — John Gould

And the irony is you use words to describe what, according to you, is indescribable. How do you get this kind of privileged knowledge?

I got it from God who (mercifully) gave this knowledge to me Himself through - to give one of many examples in the Scripture- the prophet Isaiah, whom I have already cited for you in my post (above.
). When God spoke directly to Isaiah about Himself, the prophet carefully wrote down what he was told, as follows...

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts
Nor are My ways (plans) " declares THE LORD.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts higher than your thoughts"

Do you geddit? Do you understand what God is saying? He is basically saying," Look, don't even THINK about trying to work me out because I am way, waaaaaay above and beyond anything you (human beings) could ever possibly imagine.

Check it out for yourself in the Old Testament (cf: Isaiah Chapter 55 verses 8-9)

Regards

John

Invisible? :)

I got it from God who (mercifully) gave this knowledge to me Himself through — John Gould

What of all the other people who claim knowledge of God? Are they bogus?

Invisible? :) — Vajk

You may have a point but it's irrelevant to my argument.

So at least one limit on god's power is that she cannot suicide.

And the irony is you use words to describe what, according to you, is indescribable. How do you get this kind of privileged knowledge? — TheMadFool

His indescribability is a property of human language, not of God.

His indescribability is a property of human language, not of God. — BlueBanana

How do you know God is indescribable?

Being a village worthy, I can't get past the fact that god is being described as indescribable...

I'm not saying he is, just that if he was his indescribability would not lead to any contradictions.

Taking a short sentence out of context does not aid argumentation.
"God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent.
— charleton

You replied"I don't think power and want are linked in that manner. Perhaps you mean perfection, not omnipotence and that deserves its own thread."

A being with all power can have no needs, as he has all he wants; QED your objection is false.
In the same way omnipresence means that we would all have to be a part of god and not apart from god, BY DEFINITION.
Any argument with "omni-" can only apply to the universe and everything in it, and has no meaning, as there is nothing that is not the universe.BY DEFINITION.

So you saying that, things what you can not see are not determining you arguments?

Mad Fool,

Saint Augustine said of God, "Si Comprehendis non Deus est", - ( If you understand Him, he is not God).

Augustine means that If we (human beings) could , in fact, fully understand and describe God (I.e. accurately describe the ESSENCE of God,- the personal nature of God the divine Subject as He is in Himself)) using human language and human concepts, then "He" would not be God, would he? He would be nothing more than a mere human construct - a finite, false idol created by , and possessed by, man -a "Nicht Gott" like the God whose death Nietzsche famously announced in the 19th century. But the one true (and living) Christian God can never be a possession of mankind, human beings can never "put God in their pocket" as it were, and hold Him hostage to their mortal diktats and desires. Human beings cannot, in short, deem to tell Him- "God the Father Almighty" - what He is or is not. Any attempt to do so represents nothing more than a foolish, futile word game which very quickly goes "pear-shaped" in the form of semantic problems like the "stone paradox" and so on.

Regards

John

Banno,

As a village worthy you should not practice sophistry.

Regards

John

just that if he was his indescribability would not lead to any contradictions. — BlueBanana

And is that supposed to make my argument unsound? Trying to catch the wind somehow?

So you saying that, things what you can not see are not determining you arguments? — Vajk

We can't see unicorns but we can make the argument that it doesn't need gasoline.

Any attempt to do so represents nothing more than a foolish, futile word game which very quickly goes "pear-shaped" in the form of semantic problems like the "stone paradox" and so on. — John Gould

So, you don't know if he's omnipotent or not?